who would support a return to a constitutionly sound government?

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It wouldn't surprise me if they hadn't.

so, when did you graduate law school? How long have you've been studying constitutional law and made judgements on it? Since you seem to think you know more than the highest judges and biggest experts on the constitution, the Supreme Court justices.

you know how kids are...

then they grow up.

With a post like that I figured you'd be in here with a snide comment thrown my way.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

so, when did you graduate law school? How long have you've been studying constitutional law and made judgements on it? Since you seem to think you know more than the highest judges and biggest experts on the constitution, the Supreme Court justices.

you know how kids are...

then they grow up.

But then again I'm speaking to someone who claims the US were terrorist during WWII

Well I never said the U.S. acted as terrorists during WW2, I said anyone who had anything to do with vaporizing innocent civilians is, in my opinion, a clear cut war-criminal.

 

[Gunny]

Wrong. The Constitution does not give the power to mandate healthcare at the Federal level, nor is healthcare a Right granted in the Constitution. It IS unconstitutional for the Federal government to usurp the powers given to the states.

Same goes for social security and medicare.

When you're right, you're right.

Sometimes I wonder whether some Americans have actually read the Constitution, they seem to have absolutely no idea what is and is not Constitutional.

I guess the US Supreme Courts for the last 100 years have not read the Constitution either. They have consistently supported income taxes, Social Security, Medicare, the federal reserve, the rights of the government to make treaties and embargos and the right to engage in war

Again, a Supreme Court ruling that supports the Federal government does not mean it is right. Ever notice how the Supreme Court hardly EVER overrules the Fed government but is more than will to override the State governments?

The Federal government can get rid of them. State government cannot.

Imagine THAT.

 

[Gunny]

None of these things are unconstitutional

- phasing out SS and medicare asap Nope, too many Americans depend on it
- ending the iraq war and closing our bases around the world except in afgh until we leave there Agree
- leaving the UN It is still a viable forum for international relations
- ending the federal reserve It has worked since 1913
- stopping all foreign aid Part of "carrot and stick" diplomacy
- stopping all trade embargos such as cuba Agree
- ending the income tax We have nothing to replace it with. Until we come up with something more equitable, it is still the best available means to collect revenue

Wrong. The Constitution does not give the power to mandate healthcare at the Federal level, nor is healthcare a Right granted in the Constitution. It IS unconstitutional for the Federal government to usurp the powers given to the states.

Same goes for social security and medicare.

Yes, yes, we've all heard the "Provide for the General Welfare" doesn't really mean "Provide for the General Welfare" rationalization before.

Folks like Hamilton would of course have disagreed.

But of course, you fellas are all wrapped up in your idea that your interpretation of the Constitution is the only interpretation, and everyone else is somehow in a conspiracy to destroy the Constitution.

So what if Hamilton would have disagreed? I don't agree with a LOT of Hamilton and neither does the Constitution.

My interpretation literal. That makes it right. Reading stuff into it that isn't there is wrong. Pretty simple.

 

[Gunny]

If its unconstitutional,, then challenge it to the SCOTUS. I'm sick of non-constitutional lawyers and experts on it claiming everything they don't agree with is unconstitutional. Well, if you believe so much, challenge the laws and let SCOTUS rule, which is what the CONSTITUTION states. And there is plenty of money in politics and political organizations that can fund a challenge of constitutionality.

Lame response. This is a political message board. The purpose is to debate topics, not deflect from them when they become uncomfortable.

 

[Dr Gregg]

When you're right, you're right.

Sometimes I wonder whether some Americans have actually read the Constitution, they seem to have absolutely no idea what is and is not Constitutional.

I guess the US Supreme Courts for the last 100 years have not read the Constitution either. They have consistently supported income taxes, Social Security, Medicare, the federal reserve, the rights of the government to make treaties and embargos and the right to engage in war

Again, a Supreme Court ruling that supports the Federal government does not mean it is right. Ever notice how the Supreme Court hardly EVER overrules the Fed government but is more than will to override the State governments?

The Federal government can get rid of them. State government cannot.

Imagine THAT.

according to the Constitution, you are wrong. They are the authority of it, as determined by the constitution, so if they rule it not in violation of the constitution, then it is right, regardless of what anybody thinks about it. It's how the gov't was set up

 

[Vast LWC]

So what if Hamilton would have disagreed? I don't agree with a LOT of Hamilton and neither does the Constitution.

My interpretation literal. That makes it right. Reading stuff into it that isn't there is wrong. Pretty simple.

Ahh, but my interpretation is also literal, as I read it.

And I read "Provide for the General Welfare" to mean "Provide for the General Welfare".

Now, I respect your interpretation as a valid point of argument. I don't agree with it, but I respect your opinion on the subject.

The problem I have is when people imply that my interpretation of the Constitution is somehow invalid, even though I'm simply taking the text at face value. That somehow I am trying to "destroy the Constitution" when in fact I am trying my best to abide by what I honestly think the text means.

 

[Dr Gregg]

If its unconstitutional,, then challenge it to the SCOTUS. I'm sick of non-constitutional lawyers and experts on it claiming everything they don't agree with is unconstitutional. Well, if you believe so much, challenge the laws and let SCOTUS rule, which is what the CONSTITUTION states. And there is plenty of money in politics and political organizations that can fund a challenge of constitutionality.

Lame response. This is a political message board. The purpose is to debate topics, not deflect from them when they become uncomfortable.

if its unconstitutional, SCOTUS would rule it so, so not deflecting anyway.

And we know what this board is, its for people to rant and rave and whine and attack the opposition, and you've set a great tone for that here.

Way to not address anything I mentioned though, typical

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If its unconstitutional,, then challenge it to the SCOTUS. I'm sick of non-constitutional lawyers and experts on it claiming everything they don't agree with is unconstitutional. Well, if you believe so much, challenge the laws and let SCOTUS rule, which is what the CONSTITUTION states. And there is plenty of money in politics and political organizations that can fund a challenge of constitutionality.

Lame response. This is a political message board. The purpose is to debate topics, not deflect from them when they become uncomfortable.

if its unconstitutional, SCOTUS would rule it so, so not deflecting anyway.

And we know what this board is, its for people to rant and rave and whine and attack the opposition, and you've set a great tone for that here.

Way to not address anything I mentioned though, typical

If that were true then the SCOTUS would never have to reverse a previous decision of theirs.

 

[Gunny]

I guess the US Supreme Courts for the last 100 years have not read the Constitution either. They have consistently supported income taxes, Social Security, Medicare, the federal reserve, the rights of the government to make treaties and embargos and the right to engage in war

Again, a Supreme Court ruling that supports the Federal government does not mean it is right. Ever notice how the Supreme Court hardly EVER overrules the Fed government but is more than will to override the State governments?

The Federal government can get rid of them. State government cannot.

Imagine THAT.

according to the Constitution, you are wrong. They are the authority of it, as determined by the constitution, so if they rule it not in violation of the constitution, then it is right, regardless of what anybody thinks about it. It's how the gov't was set up

Incorrect. You just set the stage for tyranny. Nice job.

 

[Gunny]

I guess the US Supreme Courts for the last 100 years have not read the Constitution either. They have consistently supported income taxes, Social Security, Medicare, the federal reserve, the rights of the government to make treaties and embargos and the right to engage in war

Again, a Supreme Court ruling that supports the Federal government does not mean it is right. Ever notice how the Supreme Court hardly EVER overrules the Fed government but is more than will to override the State governments?

The Federal government can get rid of them. State government cannot.

Imagine THAT.

according to the Constitution, you are wrong. They are the authority of it, as determined by the constitution, so if they rule it not in violation of the constitution, then it is right, regardless of what anybody thinks about it. It's how the gov't was set up

According to what is right, I am not wrong. The government perpetuating itself is NOT a Constitutional right. The Supreme Court ruling the Federal government is right to perpetuate itself doesn't make it right.

 

[industry7]

- ending the federal reserve It has worked since 1913

Really? The fed was created to prevent things like the Great Depression. Yeah, worked great.

 

[Dr Gregg]

Again, a Supreme Court ruling that supports the Federal government does not mean it is right. Ever notice how the Supreme Court hardly EVER overrules the Fed government but is more than will to override the State governments?

The Federal government can get rid of them. State government cannot.

Imagine THAT.

according to the Constitution, you are wrong. They are the authority of it, as determined by the constitution, so if they rule it not in violation of the constitution, then it is right, regardless of what anybody thinks about it. It's how the gov't was set up

According to what is right, I am not wrong. The government perpetuating itself is NOT a Constitutional right. The Supreme Court ruling the Federal government is right to perpetuate itself doesn't make it right.

According to the constitution, you are wrong, that's the way the government is set up, SCOTUS rules on the constitutionality of laws, not based on what citizens opinions are.

Maybe you need to try and amend the constitution

 

[Dr Gregg]

Again, a Supreme Court ruling that supports the Federal government does not mean it is right. Ever notice how the Supreme Court hardly EVER overrules the Fed government but is more than will to override the State governments?

The Federal government can get rid of them. State government cannot.

Imagine THAT.

according to the Constitution, you are wrong. They are the authority of it, as determined by the constitution, so if they rule it not in violation of the constitution, then it is right, regardless of what anybody thinks about it. It's how the gov't was set up

Incorrect. You just set the stage for tyranny. Nice job.

So the Framers of the constitution set the stage for tyranny? Hence all the checks and balances, and the ability to amend the constitution? Must have failed your US government class

 

[Gunny]

So what if Hamilton would have disagreed? I don't agree with a LOT of Hamilton and neither does the Constitution.

My interpretation literal. That makes it right. Reading stuff into it that isn't there is wrong. Pretty simple.

Ahh, but my interpretation is also literal, as I read it.

And I read "Provide for the General Welfare" to mean "Provide for the General Welfare".

Now, I respect your interpretation as a valid point of argument. I don't agree with it, but I respect your opinion on the subject.

The problem I have is when people imply that my interpretation of the Constitution is somehow invalid, even though I'm simply taking the text at face value. That somehow I am trying to "destroy the Constitution" when in fact I am trying my best to abide by what I honestly think the text means.

Want to play a game of syntax? You picked the wrong person. Words mean things. Put together in a sentence, they mean something. Misinterpreting those words is dishonest.

 

[Gunny]

If its unconstitutional,, then challenge it to the SCOTUS. I'm sick of non-constitutional lawyers and experts on it claiming everything they don't agree with is unconstitutional. Well, if you believe so much, challenge the laws and let SCOTUS rule, which is what the CONSTITUTION states. And there is plenty of money in politics and political organizations that can fund a challenge of constitutionality.

Lame response. This is a political message board. The purpose is to debate topics, not deflect from them when they become uncomfortable.

if its unconstitutional, SCOTUS would rule it so, so not deflecting anyway.

And we know what this board is, its for people to rant and rave and whine and attack the opposition, and you've set a great tone for that here.

Way to not address anything I mentioned though, typical

Dude, you're a sheep. "If it's inconstitutional, SCOTUS would rule so ..."

Right?

 

[NYcarbineer]

So if you take the power of determining the constitutionality of laws out of the hands of the Supreme Court,

whose hands do you put it into?

 

[Dr Gregg]

Lame response. This is a political message board. The purpose is to debate topics, not deflect from them when they become uncomfortable.

if its unconstitutional, SCOTUS would rule it so, so not deflecting anyway.

And we know what this board is, its for people to rant and rave and whine and attack the opposition, and you've set a great tone for that here.

Way to not address anything I mentioned though, typical

Dude, you're a sheep. "If it's inconstitutional, SCOTUS would rule so ..."

Right?

Yup, sheep to the constitution that helped make this country great and free and strong

 

[Dr Gregg]

So if you take the power of determining the constitutionality of laws out of the hands of the Supreme Court,

whose hands do you put it into?

Apparently Gunny's hands

 

[Oddball]

Lame response. This is a political message board. The purpose is to debate topics, not deflect from them when they become uncomfortable.

if its unconstitutional, SCOTUS would rule it so, so not deflecting anyway.

And we know what this board is, its for people to rant and rave and whine and attack the opposition, and you've set a great tone for that here.

Way to not address anything I mentioned though, typical

Dude, you're a sheep. "If it's inconstitutional, SCOTUS would rule so ..."

Right?

Two words: Dred Scott.